Mailing List Archive: SPF: Discuss

[Fwd: What is the recipient's "local policy" ? (l=)]

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

radu.spf at ohmi

Mar 31, 2005, 8:29 AM

Post #1 of 3 (401 views)
Permalink

[Fwd: What is the recipient's "local policy" ? (l=)]

> SPF has left itself open to this criticism by not having a clear
> policy on forwarding. Forwarders will ask 1) How do I know which
> name to authenticate? and 2) How do I pass the result downstream?
> There needs to be a simple, widely accepted answer to these questions
> or SPF will fail.

I was hoping we wouldn't be discussing this aspect of SPF quite yet.

I believe we should first fix the DNS related problems (load,
uncacheable macros, etc). Without these, forwarding policy does not
matter, because the IETF will not allow a DNS-heavy SPF draft to become
a standard.

In that context, an unfocussed approach to fixing problems might just be
a waste of time, if a standard is not possible.

So I think we should put this one on the back burner, and come back to
it after the -01 draft (which must include DNS fixes) is published. In
this way, any DNS fixes can be readjusted (instead of introduced for the
first time) at -02, along with the added forwarding policy.

That said, when the time comes, I will propose a way to publish the
local policy.

What any secondary MX or forwarder wants to know is... "If I accept this
piece for the recipient, will they accept it from me?"

For secondary MX's this is a real problem, because currently all spam
goes through there. The secondary MX cannot really do any kind of spam
filtering for the primary MX.

So my proposal will involve a *modifier* which can be checked by the
secondary MX, and it will tell it what the primary MX would do. (ie,
would it reject fails? Would it reject anything else? Would it accept
"none" or "neutral" or even "pass" if it came through a secondary MX?
Would it accept mail from the secondary if the sender is not already
whitelisted? Will the primary MX reject the mail because the receipient
was faked and does not exist?)

The proposal will be along the lines of the l= modifier, which lists
some rejection rules for secondary MX's or forwarders, along with a
place to look for another SPF record that would be used as the "local
policy" to use when mail is to be forwarded.

Anyway, I have some ideas that I think are backwards compatible with SPF
-01, but I don't think it's the right time to spend time on them now.
They are very important additions, but it'd be best to introduced them
in a planned manner.

Regards,
Radu.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss [at] v2

spf at fairymouse

Mar 31, 2005, 10:44 AM

Post #2 of 3 (360 views)
Permalink

Re: [Fwd: What is the recipient's "local policy" ? (l=)] [In reply to]

Reply to 424C2565.5030008 [at] ohmi
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:29:25 -0500

Radu wrote:
> Anyway, I have some ideas that I think are backwards compatible with
> SPF-01, but I don't think it's the right time to spend time on them
> now. They are very important additions, but it'd be best to introduced
> them in a planned manner.

Yes, for SPF2 (or SPF3 if we decide to drop 2 because of the links to
PRA)? Hasn't practically everyone agreed that we *need* to get a final
draft out the door. It was one one of the main reasons the Council was
formed after all. There are multiple solutions for the forwarding
problem even if one hates SRS. They work. Lets not delay this any more
then we have to.

I have watched this whole discussion move from changing the query limit,
to arguing to arguing for incompatible changes to SPF. If this was 12-18
months ago, it would be fine, but bearing in mind most of us want a
draft asap, the fact that we don't want existing sender policies to
break and that "include=not.me" does what "m=" sought to achieve, albeit
slightly less efficiently; can we please let the council decide if the
limit needs to be changed and what to and stop trying to changing the
spec and leave the rest for SPF2/3 where we can make such changes? The
spec has been stable for too long to mess with it now IMHO. Unless there
are critical flaws, could we please freeze it as it works now (apart
from spelling and grammer changes etc).

Zair

--
Paul Ficinski
zair [at] fairymouse

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss [at] v2

nobody at xyzzy

Apr 1, 2005, 1:03 PM

Post #3 of 3 (380 views)
Permalink

Re: [Fwd: What is the recipient's "local policy" ? (l=)] [In reply to]

Paul Ficinski wrote:

> Unless there are critical flaws, could we please freeze it as
> it works now (apart from spelling and grammer changes etc).

+1

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss [at] v2

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads